No,he's a national hero in Romania because the myth making made him into a symbol of resistance against an invading empire. I don't see the issue with that. Yes,the modern "oh this is just like immigration" Islam vs Christianity framing is Nazi shit,but he wasn't anymore brutal than the average ruler from that time be it from Europe or anywhere else from that matter. Note that I'm not excusing this,but I'm just tired of people regurgitating this myth that he was uniquely brutal for his time.

That originates from the Saxon merchants in Transylvania under the crown of Hungary at the time, which had dealings with him and were attacked by him. That's why he's "Dracula". Also,he was a hostage at the Ottoman court with his brother Radu when he was young. Impaling was actually an Ottoman punishment that he practiced! Wallachia at the time was politically unstable,with the rulers changing all of the time due to outside influence and inner turmoil from Boyar power jockeying. The Order of the Dragon shit was just his tactic to get the Catholics on his side so he could put himself on the throne.

I understand why this seems off putting, but from what I remember, outside of far right circles,the framing here is simply that he represents our willingness to resist the empires that dominated us and wanted to assimilate or erase our identity, like the Ottomans in the case of him and his contemporary, Stephen the Great of Moldavia, or the Austria-Hungarian Empire and the Russian Empire. Yes, in reality they were simply noblemen that wanted power and couldn't give less of a shit about the concept of a unified Romanian nation or the sanctity of Orthodox Christianity, but every nation engages in myth making and I find the creation of a national mythology based on persevering against hostile empires far less worrisome than glorifying the creation and perpetuation of said empires themselves.